4 Preface The copyright of the Master thesis rests with the author. The author is responsible for its contents. RSM is only responsible for the educational coaching and cannot be held liable for the content. 4

5 Abstract This research is initiated by the problem office car parks face with the rise of the electric vehicle(ev s) and the charging infrastructure of those car parks. The car parks are running out of capacity and are encountering major investments decisions. The office car park of EY in Amsterdam is used as the case for this study. To map the concerning issues I analyzed and visualized the charging data of all the transactions made at EY. This formed the base for the interviews conducted on employees of EY, with the goal to find characteristics and preferences of employees using the charging facilities. The results of the interviews formed the base for the proposed solutions to the charging problems. The transaction data showed that employees are mostly charging at the same time of the day, namely, at the beginning of the workday. They occupied the charging stations the rest of the day while the batteries are fully charged after a maximum of four hours. The interviews showed this behavior was mostly due to convenience. Employees are not moving their vehicle pro-actively, because they claim not having time to perform the activity. The created framework proposes four charging methods based on convenience and technical components; Traditional Charging, Social Charging, Valet Charging and Smart Charging. The study showed that Valet Charging and Smart charging are the two methods which can solve the issue of capacity shortage and facilitates convenient charging of EV s, with Valet Charging as the short term, and Smart Charging method as the long term solution. 5

6 Introduction With the rising fuel prices, depleting reserves on earth and global warming effects, the debate on environmental impact of combustion driven vehicles is getting more pressing and more people around the world are getting involved. Electric vehicles show a lower carbon footprint, which has environmental advantages because of the lower CO2 emissions, and resulting financial advantages for the driver. (Leurent &Windisch, 2011) The electric vehicle sounds like a modern invention but actually it has been around since the late 1800 s, but only got popular in the last years of the previous century, when they started to become practical in terms of speed. The real turn around for electric driving came with the introduction of the Toyota Prius, the first mass produced electric hybrid vehicle. It became very popular, for celebrities as well, which positively changed the view towards electric driving. Another event which helped the rising popularity of the electric vehicle (EV) was the introduction of a luxury electric vehicle in 2006, the Tesla. This vehicle had four times the range, about 200 miles, of the current electric vehicles on the market and was significantly faster than its competitors. A couple of years later the Chevy Volt entered the market which was the first marketed plug in hybrid (PHEV), which has a gasoline engine supporting the electric batteries to extend the range. Around the same time the Nissan Leaf was introduced which was a fully electric vehicle. Yet, in spite of the growing variety of electric vehicles entering the market, EV drivers were facing one of the early problems of EV driving, the availability of charging stations or a lack of them. With the approval of the Recovery Act for the energy department in the United States, a financial injection helped building a nationwide charging infrastructure creating thousands of charging stations. (US department of Energy, 2015, Besides the practical problems the consumers are facing with driving an EV, some other parties face other type of issues. The rise of the use of EVs also results in a growing impact on the electricity consumption. Distribution system operators (DSO) take care of the transport of energy on the grid, and facilitate the distribution of supply and demand. They invest in modernizing, replacement, expansion and maintenance of connections, grids and stations. The rising popularity of the EV, creates a great impact on the electricity consumption and therefore the grid capacity. In turn this will ask for investments on the grid to facilitate the rising electricity consumption. At a smaller level the same kind of issues regarding the rise of EVs occur. Office car park fleet owners also face a rise in electric driving and a sequential capacity problem. Besides the capacity issue they face, they have to deal with the amount of physical charging stations in their car parks. More EVs, asks for more charging points and more electricity consumption, especially during peak times. In time the firm buildings capacity will run out, and they will face the same investments as the DSO s; expansion of the grid. 6

7 To facilitate the rise in electricity demand, the nationwide infrastructures as well as the car parks infrastructures need to be redesigned. A possible improvement to the current infrastructure, which experiences a rise in popularity, is making the system smart. A smart charging infrastructure can distribute the limited available capacity without EV drivers realizing it. This eliminates the need for investments and charging of vehicles can stay affordable. (Enexis, 2015, Switching from a static energy system to one that becomes smart, being cost-efficient, and an intelligent utility agent is what defines the concept of a smart grid. (Gellings, 2009; Massoud & Wollenberg, 2005). However certain challenges arise with the evolution towards a smart energy system. Decentralized energy planning, demand fluctuation and consumers' reluctance of adjusting their consumption pattern. (Hargreaves et al., 2010; Dutscke & Paetz; Ketter et al., 2013) In the development and implementation of such a smart charging system, the execution drives the success of the system and is dependent on certain factors. The design of a charging infrastructure and the behavior of the users (Franke & Krems, 2013a; Banez-Chicharro et al., 2013) will define the charging system and its success. Some research is performed on the behavior of EV drivers (Franke & Krems, 2012 & 2013a) and even one on charging behavior of Dutch electric vehicle (EV) drivers (Spoelstra, 2014). But the behavior of users in office car parks is not yet studied. A lot of the EV s in use at office car parks have a fundamental expected difference in their motivations and behavior because of the lease contract they signed. According to a study done in California about 29% of the EV s in use are leased (Tal & Nicholas,2013), which makes it relevant to study the behavior of this specific group of EV drivers. The Electric Vehicle initiative, is a multi-government policy forum dedicated to accelerating the introduction and adoption of electric vehicles and it wrote a paper on EV domestics and outlooks(global EV Outlook, 2013). This shows the relevancy of studying Dutch charging behavior, as the Netherlands being among the most pioneering nations in the world. 7

8 Figure 1. EV sales targets. China and the US together make up more than half the EV Sales, Where the Netherlands, while being the smallest country in the list represents significant EV sales targets Figure 2. Market EV sales shares vs traditional vehicles. Norway and The Netherlands by far present the highest EV sales share. Netherlands show 4% of the vehicles bought is an EV. The prospect of studying office car parks lies in the strength car park owners have to actively steer the charging behavior. Users of the charging stations are known by name and characteristics can easily be obtained. The close link with the user of the charging stations and the possibility to actively steer great amount of users at the same time, gives high prospects for office car parks and DSO s as well to more efficiently distributing capacity and energy consumption. Aim and research question The aim of this research is to give both quantitative and qualitative insights in charging behavior of EV drivers at office car parks and steer towards flexible charging behavior. Which results in the following research question: - How should the charging facilities and conditions in an office car park be structured, will it motivate flexible charging behavior? With a sub question: - How can charging behavior in office car parks be influenced? To clarify charging behavior and underlying reasons for certain charging behavior a literature review is conducted. This will shed light on different characterizations of EV drivers which influence charging behavior and how certain incentives or interventions can steer towards more flexible behavior. The found characterizations will be analyzed with charging transactions from the EY office car park from 8 January 2013 till 12 march of 2015, in combination with 10 in depth interviews conducted on EY employees who charge in that same office car park and a small field time study for quantifying convenience levels. 8

9 Scientific relevance The scientific relevance from the results in this study lies in a deeper understanding of charging behavior of employees in office car parks, a subject that has not yet been studied. Besides the deeper understanding of the behavior, this study also gives results on the influencing of the charging behavior in these car parks. Societal Relevance As the introduction states the prospect of studying office car parks lies in the strength car park owners have to actively steer the charging behavior. The results will show the most important influencers of the current charging behavior and provides a framework that contains multiple scenario s which are evaluated against the most relevant factors found in the results. With prospect to the future, this study can contribute to an optimal charging infrastructure model of car parks, ready for Vehicle to grid charging, where EV s are being used for grid support and can improve the economics of grid-connected electric-drive vehicles and further encourage their adoption. It would also improve the stability of the electrical grid (Kempton et al., 2007). Literature review Charging behavior Charging behavior will be defined as a combination of the characteristics transaction starting & end time, charging duration and charging decision. Respondents will be tested with their flexibility towards these characteristics. The fact that an average vehicle is most of the time parking and potentially connected to the grid makes an electric vehicle flexible regarding the charging time schedule (Einwachter et al., 2014 conference). Transaction starting & end time One of the dimensions of charging behavior is the time of charging. It consists of the period the vehicle is connected to the charging station. A study by Smith et al. (2011) shows parking times of EV s during the day. At home, most park from 9 PM until 7 AM and at work from 9 AM to 3 PM. The capacity peak times mentioned before, ask for a more dispersed distribution of those charging starting and end times to avoid capacity problems. If those peak times exist, people tend to plug in and charge at the same time during the day which eventually gives congestion on the charging points. Charging stations are not occupied efficiently in this case. A study done in Poland on the issue of avoiding peak charging times and inefficient use of charging stations recommends system limitation to maintain power reserve, or regulatory action by implementing a tariff system and actively influencing demand on peak times. (Benysek & Jarnut, 2011) 9

10 Charging duration The time a vehicle need to fully charge its batteries is depending on battery type and the charging station its connected to. This varies from 8 hours when connected to a home wall socket, to 30 minutes when connected to a fast charging station. Therefore charging duration can only be quantified with the knowledge of type of charging station and vehicle. (US energy department, 2015, Transaction duration is the time that the vehicle is connected to the charging station, even if it is not charging. The gap between charging and transaction duration should be minimized, to facilitate efficient use of the charging stations. Charging decision To better understand charging behavior of humans, Rahmati & Zhong (2009) did research on charging behavior on mobile phones, which is comparable to the charging of electric vehicles. This research focusses on the process users follow to manage the limited energy resources stored in the mobile battery (Rahmati & Zhong, 2009). They proposed two charging types which they called human battery interaction (HBI). Those who charge whenever convenient (low HBI), and those who charge according to their battery level (high HBI). Or in other words, how is the decision made to charge or not to charge? Influencers of Charging Behavior Anxiety Range anxiety The charging of mobile phones, is in one characteristic totally different from charging of EVs, which is the availability of charging points. The low density of charging stations at the moment creates uncertainty on the next charging opportunity, which is called range anxiety (Franke et al.,2012). This range anxiety results in users charging whenever convenient (low HBI)(Franke, 2012: Rahmati & Zhong, 2009). Therefore the higher the battery life of a device is in relation to the frequency of encountering charging opportunities (i.e., abundant charging opportunities), the more likely users will adopt a higher UBIS. However, According to Franke et al (2012), this range anxiety is primarily a psychological barrier and with the current state of art mobility systems, most mobility needs can be met. Financial anxiety Range anxiety is mostly a characteristics of Full Electric Vehicle (FEV) drivers. Hybrid (PHEV) drivers will always have a backup fossil fuel engine and will bring them where they need to be. It is expected that their anxiety to charge whenever convenient is more due to financial reasons because driving electric is more lucrative than driving on fossil fuels. 10

11 Informedness This factor concerns the knowledge of the EV driver on its vehicle s characteristics and limitations. Assuming range anxiety is primarily a psychological barrier, a solution might occur here with reducing this barrier. Providing information can be one of the interventions to reduce psychological barriers. Research shows that information can be effective if it is presented when and where the target behavior will occur and is easily validated by the target audience (Stern,1999). Therefore giving real time information on charging transactions, like real time charge load, range to next destination, and charging options, can actively remove psychological barriers like range anxiety and results in a higher HBI and a higher flexibility and more efficient judgement on choosing charging moments. Financial sensitivity Durable and smart energy systems will need more than efficiency, clean and low cost renewable energy sources. Efficient price signals can motivate sustainable energy consumption as well as better real-time alignment of energy demand and supply (Ketter et al., 2010). Influencing the behavior in car parks by providing efficient price signals can therefore motivate flexible charging behavior which results in better alignment of energy demand and supply in car parks. Positive financial incentives In the case of charging in company parking facilities, most of the EVs are lease vehicles. And because most lease drivers are not financially charged for their charging activities at the workplace, they will not likely be sensitive to direct positive financial incentives. Indirect financial incentives on the other hand could work very well, like give discount on future charging activities at home. Negative financial incentives Another option could be to give negative financial incentives or discincentives in office car parks (Katzev et al., 1987). By letting chargers pay a small amount for direct/fast charging, while its free of charge when you let the charging station charge the vehicle according to the capacity available. Convenience Non-financial interventions are not as easy to point out in when it comes to electric charging. In general studies have shown that people were more likely to make permanent changes in their energy behaviors if the new behaviors were easy and convenient to perform, when they had the skills and resources needed to change behaviors, when their neighbors and friends were changing in similar ways, and when they made commitments to change in public settings (Costanzo et al., 1986; Harrigan, 1991; Stern, 1992). In this regard, a change in charging culture, which is easy and convenient to perform could create a better distribution of charging moments and therefore reduce capacity peak times. The convenience factor is linked to the research of Rahmati & Zhong (2009) on low user battery interaction mentioned before. People tend to charge their batteries whenever convenient and EV drivers adopt routinized behavior with regard to charging their EV, and charging moments are chosen according to the provided convenience and habits instead of battery level information (Poelstra, 2014). 11

12 Valet parking A convenient option to deal with vehicles unnecessary occupying charging stations by staying connected without charging, is by outsourcing the activity of moving the vehicle or capacity. This can be done manually by hiring a valet parker who will manage the carpark according to a set of rules and preferences of the carpark fleet owner and its users. Smart charging system EV s can be an important part of the Smart Grid if they are properly integrated in the market. They can yield significant benefits for the network when part of a smart grid. Uncontrolled use of EV s causes peak energy demand and resulting need for grid expansion (Ketter et al., 2014). An internal smart charging system can distribute capacity over the different charging stations in such a way that the building/site capacity peak times can be reduced but with every vehicle charged when the driver needs it. With such a system the (future) infrastructure can cope with energy demand of the user without having to do huge investments on the grid or salary in case of valet parking. (US department of Energy, 2015, 2015, The significant benefit the EV can yield concerning smart grids, is it can balance the electrical grid by temporary storing capacity and create flexible energy supply. Kahlen et al.(2015), studied Virtual Power Plants (VPP), centrally-controlled systems of interconnected energy sources. These VPP s participate in an energy exchange. They are controlled smart trading agents which buy energy cheap, store it, and sell it at a higher price. This can create profitability for EV fleet owners. Using the EV for operating reserves enhances gross profits of the EV fleet owner by 7.18% (Kahlen et al., 2015) 12

13 Relations The literature review has shown that some of the mentioned factors and dimension relate to each other. These relations will be elaborated upon and further explanation will be provided. Informedness charging behavior As shown in the literature(stern,1999) it is expected that providing real time information can results in more efficient judgement when deciding on the necessity to charge. Therefore it is expected that the informedness of EV driver will have positive relation with flexible charging behavior. Convenience charging behavior Costanzo et al.(1986) has shown that convenience triggers people to change their behavior, and inconvenience will demotivate people to behave in the desired way. Poelstra (2014) has shown that EV drivers adopt routinized behavior with regard to charging their EV. Therefore it is expected that the convenience level of the charging infrastructure has a positive relation on the charging behavior. Range anxiety charging behavior Franke et al.(2012) states that with lower range anxiety, a higher HBI can be obtained and resulting in behavior where EV drivers charge according to their battery level. A better judgement on charging decision behavior is expected with lowering the range anxiety. And therefore range anxiety is expected to have a negative relation with charging behavior. Informedness Range anxiety As shown in the literature it is expected that providing real time information will result in more efficient judgement when deciding on the necessity to charge and remove the psychological barrier that is range anxiety and thus results in a higher HBI (Franke, 2012: Rahmati & Zhong, 2009). 13

14 Conceptual framework As discussed in the introduction the question to be answered is : How should the charging facilities and conditions in an office car park be structured so it will motivate flexible charging behavior? The main concept underlying this study is flexibility in charging activities. As discussed before four influencers of charging behavior and their relations are defined. This results in the following conceptual framework: Figure 3. Conceptual framework. Flexible charging behavior is negatively related by Anxiety (range and financial) positvely influenced by informedness, convienience( in the form of a smart charging system or valet charging service) and financial incentives(negative and positive). 14

15 Method With the lack of abundance of theory and former research on the behavior of EV users, this study asked for exploratory, inductive, qualitative research because this study aims for the reasons behind human behavior. To support the qualitative part, a quantitative study on the charging transactions of EY is performed. This consisted of analyzing raw charging data to find problems and patterns in charging transactions, where the qualitative part consists of face-to-face in-depth interviews to explain those patterns and problems and finding solutions for them. Ten in-depth interviews have been conducted on EV users at EY. EY has given its full corporation for this study and happily provided respondents. Kees Eriks, fleet owner of EY asked EY employees to participate as it is of importance for EY itself which positively influenced the participation and the amount of interviews that has been conducted. The respondents are selected by their car type, with the goal to have a variety in type of vehicles, which would give a good representation of the EV driving community in the Netherlands. Quantitative methods EY granted access to the charging data of their charging facilities which contained multiple data sets with all the charging transactions from the period starting in January 2013 till the beginning of This data set showed every charging transaction in combination with a card ID, start and end time and start and end date of the transaction, the duration, the volume charged (measured in KW/H) and the license plate. These data made it possible to look at parking times and made it possible to make statements on the current charging behavior, in the form of average plug in time, average parking time and number of transactions per day. Graphs have been made for defining peak charging times, transactions per day and the durations of all the transactions. The column charging speed is added by gathering charging speeds per type of vehicle online. With this data the actual charging time by dividing charge load (Kw/h) with charging speed could be calculated. Subsequently this made it possible to calculate the idle time of the transactions. The charging time of the parking time could be subtracted, which gave the idle time. This information gave the opportunity to make statements on the occupancy of the charging stations and the duration of the transactions. This quantitative research gives a first look at the current charging infrastructure and behavior and gave me opportunity to calculate the potential of an efficient charging infrastructure. After calculating the potential theoretical efficiency, qualitative research is conducted which is the second part of this study. 15

16 Qualitative methods The design of the interviews was semi structured, According to the literature some pre-determined questions and themes has been discussed with every single respondent. The process of interviewing had a flexible approach, with room for the interviewee to elaborate more on one subject than another. The Interview started with general introducing questions about the motivation to buy an EV, the past and present experiences the respondent has with electric driving and charging, and more characterizing questions on psychological characteristics like possible range anxiety and their current charging behavior. The second part of the interview consisted of more questions pointed to the actual charging problem at the EY office, with some probing questions on possible solutions. Their sensitivity towards financial incentives and their informedness, and their attitude towards interventions like valet parking and a smart charging system was tested (see appendix 1, for full interview in Dutch & English). The interviews took about minutes depending on the interviewee and its answers. These interviews have taken place at the EY office in Amsterdam and were recorded with the permission of the interviewee. Recording notes were made to elicit certain answers or expressions. Right after the interview a summary was made with important notes, so no data gets lost in time. A full transcript has been made from the interviews to prepare it for coding. In the coding process themes and categories were identified of the data and classified. Passages of the data were then coded to the themes. After coding of all the interviews, 70 codes were created. Those were reviewed and some were combined and a few deleted. Eventually 50 working codes remained. 5 descriptors were created, which identified the respondents. These consisted of mostly demographics and relevant characteristics of the respondent. Creating descriptors helped in analyzing the codes, by comparing them per descriptor. After these codes and descriptors were set, the data was ready for the analyzing stage. The tables and graphs for the analysis used are the code application table, which simply counts the used codes and gives an idea on relevant and important themes within the data. Secondly, a code co-occurrence table (appendix 3) which counted if some codes were mentioned frequently along to each other. This shows a certain relation between codes and themes. Another function used to analyze the data was the Code * Descriptor. This gave good insight in how codes differ between descriptors. For example, how a certain code or theme differs between genders or between different car types. Because coding interviews can be biased due to a subjective researcher, a validation of the coding is done to guard the conformability and quality of the coding. A fellow student was asked to code a number of the same coded interviews, so a comparison could be made of those codes and the occurrence of these. I have asked coded 40% of the interviews conducted, and provided around 30 codes and their occurrence. He compared our coding and 73,3% of the codes he used, can directly be 16

17 linked to codes used. Some of the codes were renamed according to the validation codes for better understanding. The overall 73,3% agree level proved the quality of the first coding and therefore I could proceed with the analysis. The other 26,7% of the codes which could not be linked to my codes where only used once or twice and they were very detailed. Therefore these codes could be combined with other codes or were rated as not important enough for analyzing. For a table showing this validation result see Appendix 2. The two research strategies together, eventually created a charging format for car parks with an optimal amount of charging stations, and how this should be structured and presented in order to work, be costefficient and convenient for the user. Information on costs were received by meetings with concerning suppliers. An additional research method was required for the last part of this study, namely a field research. In the concluding section of this study, a cost benefit analysis is made. For calculating the benefits, the convenience of the employees needed to be quantified. This is done by measuring the time spend on moving the vehicle. The time was measured with a stopwatch, from leaving the workplace, get into the elevator, go into the car park, move the vehicle, and back to the workplace. This was done multiple times for three different floors to get a relevant average. This average time spend on this activity multiplied with the occurrence of this activity multiplied with the average salary of a EY employee, gives the potential benefit or time/cost savings with implementing a certain scenario. The calculation of the average hourly wage of an EY employee is not provided due to confidentiality of the information. 17

18 Results In this section, the results will be presented according to answering the sub question mentioned in the introduction: - How can charging behavior in office car parks be influenced? First the current charging infrastructure and behavior will be described. This will be done by analyzing the charging data and explaining the qualitative results with quotes from the interviews. After establishing the status quo, the results on possible influencers of the behavior are discussed. Current charging infrastructure The current charging infrastructure is best described by showing the EV s in use at EY and the amount of charging transactions per day that are undertaken. Figure 4 shows the rise of the EV at EY in the Netherlands. This graph has about the same growth rate as in the overall outlook for the EV rise shown in figure 1 in the introduction. 40 of the EV s at EY Netherlands are in use at the Amsterdam office. Figure 4. Number of EV s in use at EY Netherlands. Beginning of 2014, large growth of registered EV s, then stabilizes and growths exponentially from the end of 2014 till now (first quarter of 2015) This rise in EV s at EY results in limited charging stations available(18) for being occupied too often. This congestion of the charging stations is illustrated in figure 5, which shows that for the past year, the number of charging transactions per day did not change, while twice as much vehicles need to be charged than before. 18

19 Figure 5. Number of charging transactions per day for the previous 2 years. A rise in number of charging transactions in the beginning of 2014, but stabilizes afterwards. The number of transactions do not rise according to the rise in EV s in use which shows that current infrastructure does not meet the charging needs from the EV population at EY. Which results in employees not being able to charge at the workplace, which contradicts the promotion for electric driving from EY; I never expected that I had to charge at home that much, I can say I won t but then I am using fossil fuel, which defeats the whole purpose (interview C, line ). The congestion of the charging stations also becomes a frustration to EY employees; Charging at work is a nightmare, If I arrive at work after 8.30, every single charging station is occupied. (Interview B line 175). This frustration has risen to such a level that some change their schedule to acquire a charging station or are using public transport for traveling to work because they know they will not be able to charge at work. If I work at Amsterdam office, I ll use the public transport and leave my EV at home (interview G, line 634). Besides that the charging stations itself appear to be broken once in a while, EY introduced multiple new electric carpool cars; Those new carpool cars are constantly connected to the charging stations, and those are exactly the ones that are not charging most of the time (Interview A, line ). This can be seen as proof that there is a shortage of charging stations at the car park. The majority plugs in around 8, and stays connected the rest of the day. With about 18 charging stations and about 40 employees at the Amsterdam office are driving electric, the demand for charging stations exceeds the supply. This is confirmed by every single interviewee. They are simply always occupied (interview J, line 902) I always assume I will not be able to acquire a charging station (interview J, line 883). We just need more charging stations, EY will not outrun the fact the we need more (interview C, line 284). It was by far the most mentioned line in the interviews (code B.2 not enough charging stations (n=25). 19

20 Current charging behavior The congestion of the charging stations is not just due to the rise of EV s and the limited number of charging stations, but charging behavior also plays a big role. The behavior will be explained according to the same structure as in the literature review, with the three dimensions of charging behavior; transaction starting & end time, charging duration, and charging decision. Transaction starting & end time Figure 4. Number of charging stations and the starting and end time of the transactions. Clear peaks can be found for starting times in the beginning of the work day when employees arrive at the office and at the end of the work day for ending times (unplugging). This graph shows a clear peak time in starting times of the transactions. Most of the transactions start between 8 and 9 AM. Which means that the majority plugs in at the beginning of the work day. At the other end, a clear peak is shown between 5 PM and 6 PM, when employees disconnect their vehicle at the end of the workday. The disconnection peak starts around 3 PM which agrees with the research done by Smith et al. (2011) on parking times of EV s. this peaks suggests that employees are connected to the charging stations for their whole working day and only plug out when they leave the office. Some respondents confirmed this behavior. I stay connected for the whole day, while I need only 3 hours to charge (Interview B, line 185). This shows even they are aware they do not need to be connected to the charging station as long as they are, they still do. 20

21 Charging duration To further explain current charging behavior, the duration of the transactions is relevant. Figure 5 shows the percentage of transactions and their minimum transactions duration. The charging infrastructure administrator at EY (Mol, W) estimated that with the current set-up every vehicle needs a maximum of four hours to fully charge their batteries. Given this assumption, at least 70% of the transactions are parked for a longer time than they actually charge. When you look further along the x- axis, around the 9 hour mark, 35% is parked longer than 9 hours and is therefore unnecessary occupying the charging station for at least 5 hours. Figure 5. Transaction duration (parking time). Y% of the charging transactions is connected to the charging station for a minimum x hours. More than 70% of the transactions take longer than 4 hours. Where only a maximum of 3,5 hours is required in the current charging infrastructure set up of EY. This shows the inefficient use, and unnecessary occupation of the charging stations. This inefficient occupation of the charging stations is confirmed by most of the interviewees (E,C,I,J,D,B,A); Most of the times I connect in the morning when I arrive and plug out when I leave at the end of the day. Which is unnecessary, because I m occupying it (interview D, line ). The calculation of the occupancy degree gives a final confirmation. From the total plugged in time (parking time), 72,44% is in idle mode or, not charging. which means that 72,44% of the time, the charging stations are unnecessary occupied. Which gives an occupancy degree of 27,56%. This behavior shows the massive possible gain in making transactions more flexible and making more efficient use of the charging stations. There is a difference between hybrid transactions versus the full electric transactions, which shows that the full electric vehicles tend to longer unnecessary occupy the charging stations than the hybrids. The hybrids are only idle for 37,52% of the time. This can be due to the overrepresentation of Tesla under 21

22 the FEV s. The Tesla has larger batteries and will less likely have empty batteries when arriving at the office, while a Tesla charges a lot faster on the EY setup than hybrids and therefore needs less charging time. Results show that 81,8% of the FEV s have a steady driving pattern which explains the difference between occupancy degrees. The overcompensation of Tesla makes that they arrive with an almost full battery at the office and need less time charging than PHEV s. Charging decision As presented in the literature Rahmati & Zhong (2009) identified two charging types; Those who charge whenever convenient (low HBI), and those who charge according to their battery level (high HBI). The employees are divided according to their HBI. Then indeed we see they tend to charge whenever opportunity is given (n=6) or in other words, with a free charging station they always plug in no matter what the charge level of their vehicle is. The vast majority also stated to stay connected from arriving till leaving the office (n=8). If I m presented with the possibility to charge, even if my vehicle is almost fully charged, I will plug it in. The fuller the better, I ll always have sufficient charge load (interview A, line 51-53). When I find a free charging station at the car park I plug in, despite my battery level (interview I, line ) These quotes show that the decision EY employees make, is merely based on the availability of a charging station rather than on the battery level and therefore contain a low HBI (Rahmati & Zhong,2009). 22

23 Charging behavior Influencers With the current infrastructure and behavior described, the results on the underlying causes of the charging behavior are presented. When relevant, the occurrence of the codes is presented (n= x). Range anxiety The overall descriptor shows that only 40% of the respondents possess a form of range anxiety. Appendix 3 shows the low range anxiety code is mentioned twice(n=8) as frequent as the high range Range anxiety anxiety(n=4). This is due to the majority of PHEV drivers. 90% of the employees with high range anxiety are FEV high low drivers. This anxiety from FEV drivers expresses itself by the extensive planning of the day regarding the 40% availability of charging stations in relation to the needed range for the day. Especially with long distances I need 60% to plan my day, agenda and sometimes even my adjust my route to prevent empty batteries Figure 6. Range anxiety descriptor, only 40% (interview H, line ). Besides planning it also affects the respondents possess high range their driving habits. I m actually driving more economic anxiety because of the constant reminder of remaining range (interview H, line 717). I m starting to behave better on the road, even the number of fines declined (interview D, line ). PHEV drivers do not seem to care about their range and do not adjust their driving style according to the remaining range, because of their back up combustion engine. I do not pay attention to the remaining range, the combustion engine picks up perfectly. But this combustion engine is not fuel economic, on the contrary even (Interview C, Line 257). I do try to charge whenever possible, I want to use electric the engine as much as possible cause it is cheaper that way (interview F, line ). This last quote introduces the other form of anxiety which is more related to PHEV drivers. Financial anxiety The lack of range anxiety made me ask further for their motivations and found that most of them had another kind of anxiety namely, financial anxiety. This anxiety originated through the travel cost compensation policy EY has. For hybrids, only a certain amount of distance can be travelled per month on fossil fuel, but when this is exceeded this is for the employees its own costs (interview E, line ). This makes them want to charge as much as possible at work to avoid those costs. The FEV driver also has a form or financial anxiety. This consists of the fact that if they need to charge at home, they pay for the withdrawn charged electricity on their monthly electricity bill. Due to the charging problems at work, I need to charge at home a lot, which is costing me private money which is not compensated. (interview C, line ). But the interviews showed that the majority of the respondents who have financial anxiety are driving PHEV s. (57,1%) 23

24 Overall, the interviews showed that anxiety is strongly dependent of the type of EV: Range anxiety is mostly a FEV drivers characteristic, where financial anxiety is more related to PHEV drivers. Informedness One of the assumptions was the unawareness of employees (non- informed) of their vehicle s characteristics and were therefore charging as long as they park. Results have shown that this was not the case. Most of the respondents have a very good understanding of their vehicle and its specifications (n=8). It showed that it was more related to the inconvenience or lack of time than it was because of uninformedness. Even with the majority having a good understanding of its car s characteristics it was tested if providing real time charging information will influence charging behavior. Providing information would actually make them more flexible in their charging behavior (n=7). I think people are more willing to move their vehicle if a replacement parking spot is available. If this is the case, then yes, I wouldn t mind moving my vehicle (interview B, line ). This shows it s more about the inconvenience than being unknowledgeable on when the vehicle is fully charged. Convenience The convenience factor is linked to the research of Rahmati & Zhong (2009) on low user battery interaction mentioned before. People tend to charge their batteries whenever convenient and EV drivers adopt routinized behavior with regard to charging their EV, and charging moments are chosen according to the provided convenience and habits instead of battery level information (Poelstra, 2014). What EY is trying now is that we need to move our vehicle away from the charging station but then there is no parking spot left. It is not a rule, but reception asks. But there is no replacing parking spot in the car park so that just does not work. (interview B, line ) The actual problem is the shortage of parking sports. EV drivers can claim a parking space, but even if would move my vehicle of the charging station when batteries are charged, I have to park my car a 7 minutes walk from the office, that s just inconvenient, especially if I m carrying files.(interview A, line 110) Even if I am asked to move my EV, I have to leave my work or even a meeting, which costs time, and I simply do not have that time. (interview J, line ). These quotes show the inconvenience it brings to move the EV from the charging station. As literature states, people are willing to adapt when new behaviors are easy and convenient to perform (Costanzo et al., 1986; Harrigan, 1991; Stern, 1992). EY employees will therefore keep to their habits and this inefficient charging behavior with the current charging infrastructure. 24

25 Interventions This section will provide the results on possible interventions based on the results of charging behavior influencers. Plugin group One of the interventions EY already implemented is what they call the stekkerclub or the plug in group. Which mostly consists of providing contact information of all the EV users at EY to one another so they can contact each other to ask if one can move their EV if its unnecessary occupying the charging station. Since the introduction of this method, not much changed. When asked about the Plug In Group, most of them mentioned never having used it(a.2)(n=5). We tried that but nobody uses it (interview D, line 428). I don t know how they see it, do I need to send an that I m leaving? It just does not work (interview B, line ). These are just two out of many quotes saying that nobody uses it. If I asked why, most of them answered that they don t have time to move their EV during the day (A.3)(n=6). One also mentioned that they feel uncomfortable to ask a colleague to move their car during the day(a.1)(n=1). Notable is that all the interviewees who claim not having time to move their vehicle, are partners. The working day of a partners tend to be ruled by their agenda and therefore it can be argued that they indeed do not have spare time to move their EV. I am not very flexible, my agenda manages my day Iinterview F, line 932). The shortage of parking sports mentioned earlier illustrates a not for seen issue, besides the shortage of charging stations and non-efficient charging behavior. There has been a problem with parking spots in general at EY, but this shows that EV driving employees do not want to give up their class A parking spot. Another psychological barrier for employees to use the plug in group is that of politeness. One also mentioned that they feel uncomfortable to ask a colleague to move their car during the day(a.1)(n=1). In reality you don t use it, because, uhm well, you need to disturb someone, to get off this work spot or even a meeting (interview A, line 19-20). This makes sense, especially in a hierarchical company, where working relationships are not always on the same level of hierarchy. It can be awkward to call a partner asking if he wants to move his or her Tesla, so you can charge your hybrid Toyota Prius. Financial interventions The fact that financial anxiety exists among employees, gave the idea to provide direct financial incentives for the transaction, to motivate flexible charging behavior. Another hint that gave away the financial motives from the employees was the main purchase reason when they acquired an EV. 90% claims that it was mainly a financial based decision. 25

26 Therefore in theory financial incentives on the transaction could work but in reality it Main purchase reason will probably not. This is because all the employees are leasing their vehicles and Financial/fiscal driving experience environmental therefore not paying for their charging transactions. Their sensitivity towards financial incentives was tested hypothetically. 50% of the respondents claimed to be sensitive for financial incentives; I wouldn t mind if my charging transaction will start after peak hours, I just don t want to pay 0% 10% 90% for it. (interview B, line ). Figure 7. Purchase reason descriptor. Only But others, clearly stated that this was not acceptable; 10% of respondents claim to had Just not possible in juridical sense, forget it environmental purchase reasons (interview C, line 305). So potentially this could be a solution but it is just too hard to put this in practice in this particular case. Valet parking At this time it asks too much time and effort from the employees to occupy the charging stations in an efficient way. They don t mind, depending on their day, that the charging only begins after peak hours, as long as the batteries are fully charged when they leave. I don t mind if my EV only starts charging from 1 PM. (interview F, line 549). As presented in the results, 60% claims to be quite flexible in their charging moments during the day and this is confirmed by the charging data, which shows that more than 70% is connected longer than they charge. Employees are willing to be more flexible but they are not willing to give in on their convenience level. This results agrees with the studies discussed in the literature review section (Costanzo et al., 1986; Harrigan, 1991; Stern, 1992), which shows that people were more likely to make permanent changes in their energy behaviors if the new behaviors were easy and convenient to perform. Therefore the activity of distributing capacity, or moving the vehicles, should be outsourced which eliminates the need for compensating on convenience. The attitude towards valet parking was tested (O.7)(n=11). A 100% acceptance level. Valet parking? Perfect, I ll leave my keys at the reception. No problem. I am driving a leased vehicle after all, so it is not even mine, so if EY thinks this is the way to go, I totally agree. (interview E, line ) 26

27 Smart Charging system A technical solution(o.6)(n=7) was frequently mentioned as the ultimate solution(o.6)(n=7); Eventually EY has to look at an automated solution which uses categories and priorities, with a computer determining who charges when. (interview F, line ). The vast majority (71,4%) of the interviewees who opted for a technological solution, are partners. The other 28,6% were managers. On the construction of such a system is some debate. Some hint on the priority for FEV s. Often a lot of hybrids are charging, while they always have a back up to come home where we as FEV drivers don t. That s a problem. (Interview I, line ). There should be distinction between FEV and PHEV. (Interview A, line 75-76). Others claim a distinction between leaving times should be made, where the ones who have to leave during the day should have priority. Eventually EY has to prioritize on the calendar of the EV driver, If you are staying at the office all day, charging should start later. (Interview F, line 595) Same goes for the distinction between fee-earners and not fee earners, the charging stations should be divided into categories (Interview F, line ). 27

28 Relations Informedness charging behavior The relation between informedness and charging behavior seems to lie at the charging duration behavior. All the respondents were highly knowledgeable on their vehicles characteristics, which means informedness is not reason for them charging whenever possible (charging decision). But it does relate to the duration of the transaction. The interviews showed that pro- actively providing employees with real time information and therefore improving their informedness, can lower the duration of the transaction. If I get notified that my vehicle is fully charged, I am willing to move my EV, given that a replacing parking space nearby is available. It will happen that I get notified will I am in a meeting of 3 hours. (interview c, line ). This quotes shows the potential of informing the employees, but it merely shows the conditions employees ask for, before moving their EV. Replacing parking spots is mentioned constantly (n=5). And tolerance in response time after notification is asked because of the possibility of not having the opportunity to act instantly. Overall, informedness seems to be positively related with charging behavior. Convenience charging behavior The relation of convenience and charging behavior exists mostly at the charging duration. I m not going to move my vehicle during the day (interview H, line 734). I don t have the time to move my vehicle during the day (interview F, line ). This shows the reason for the long duration of the charging transactions. Poelstra (2014) showed the charging decision is made on routinized behavior, which confirms with the results of this study where people tend to charge their batteries whenever convenient instead of according to their battery levels. I always charge when given the opportunity (interview C, line 275). Overall, the interviews show a positive relation between convenience and charging behavior. Anxiety charging behavior An interesting combination of codes which co-occur are the codes H.1 and P.1. The respondents with a high range anxiety tend to always charge when opportunity is given which shows the positive relation between range anxiety and charging decision. As presented in the results, 76,9% of the respondents who always charge whenever opportunity is given, are hybrids. This is due to the financial anxiety they have. Eliminating or lowering this anxiety can have a positive effect on their flexibility in charging behavior, especially the charging decision. This can be done by compensating more of the fossil fuel used, or by compensating the charged volume outside the office. This would lower the need to charge anytime possibility and could therefore make them more flexible in their charging transactions at the office. 28

29 The following quote elicits the strength of this anxiety; If I had known the issues it have brought me, I wouldn t have chosen for an electric vehicle. It is costing me instead of saving me money (interview C, line ). Overall, anxiety and charging behavior show a negative relation. Informedness anxiety Besides the conventional relations between influencers and behavior, Informedness and anxiety were also expected to be related. 80% of the employees who are aware they are occupying the charging stations unnecessary and are therefore flexible in their charging transactions, possess low range anxiety. This shows that informedness and anxiety are negatively related. Results have also shown that all the respondents were knowledgeable of the characteristics of their vehicle. Which eliminates the possibility to remove the psychological barrier which is range anxiety by providing more (real-time) information (Franke & Krems, 2013). 29

30 Time study The last results are that of the field study conducted at the EY office in Amsterdam to find average time spend on the activity of moving the EV from the charging station is shown in the next table. Case Second floor 12th floor 21th floor 1 4:01:00 6:02:00 5:41:00 2 5:02:00 5:48:00 5:10:00 3 4:21:00 5:56:00 5:29:00 4 4:17:00 5:42:00 5:31:00 5 4:05:00 5:35:00 5:04:00 6 4:45:00 5:59:00 5:45:00 7 4:49:00 6:05:00 5:52:00 9 5:05:00 5:22:00 5:07: :52:00 5:26:00 5:24:00 Sub average 4:35:13 5:46:07 5:27:00 Total average 5:16:07 Figure 8. Time spend on moving the EV f of the charging station (minutes). It takes an average of 5:16 minutes to leave the workplace, access the car park, and back to workplace. An extra minute is needed for moving the vehicle This shows that on average it takes 5:16 minutes, to leave the workplace, enter the car park and back to the workplace. The moving of the vehicle itself is not taken into this average. The time needed for moving the vehicle to another parking sport at the same level is about a minute. Therefore the average time needed for the whole activity is 6:16 minutes Number of times activity needs to be performed per day Minutes / day Hours / day Hours / year Figure 9. Total hours spend on this activity with current charging behavior. in 2018, employees will spend 4075 hours a year on the activity of moving the vehicle from the charging stations in total. Figure 9 shows what eliminating the activity can save the employees in hours. The hours per year saved, multiplied with the average salary of an EY employee, results in 132, saved in the first year. With the expected rise in EV s by 2018, the savings can run up to 660, saved per year. 30

31 Discussion The results of the study aimed to answer the sub question: - How can charging behavior in office car parks be influenced? The results have shown that the (in)convenience level is the strongest influencer of the current charging behaviors among EY employees. Direct financial incentives also can positively influence the charging behavior, but in this particular case it is not realizable because of the nature of the charging payment structure. To remove the financial anxiety, other interventions should be studied. Compensating charged load at home, or increase the compensation of fossil fuel use for hybrids. These financial interventions are just curing the symptoms, while for a durable solution, the charging infrastructure needs to be redesigned to make a lasting difference. In this section possible charging structures are proposed with the results found in this study as a base. This will be done by classifying the results into multiple possible scenarios. These scenarios will together form a new framework. The scenarios will then be evaluated through relevant criteria and eventually a recommendation for a charging structure will be provided. Scenarios Traditional charging One of the possible scenarios for EY is maintaining the status quo and keep charging like they do. In reality this means placing a number of new charging stations to facilitate the rise of EV s in use. Employees will not change their behavior and charging stations will keep being unnecessary occupied too often. It s an easy and in the short term, low cost option but it is ignoring the underlying problem. Currently at EY Amsterdam office, only 18 charging stations are placed, with 40 vehicles in use. This study has shown, with the current charging infrastructure more charging stations need to be placed to accommodate charging for the current number of EV s. Assuming 75% of the vehicles in use need to charge at the office every day, 30 charging stations are needed. And that is just for the current amount of EV s, where the fleet owner of EY has the expectation that this number of EV s is going to rise from 40 to 200 by Which means placing a massive amount of charging stations to facilitate charging. With at least an extra 100 charging stations needed in two years and a unit price of 750 euro s per charging station, this is not an investment EY is eager to make. Besides the number of charging stations, the building capacity is going to be an issue in this scenario. The results showed us the charging peak time around 8 AM. And that is just with 18 charging stations. If the number of charging stations is going to rise as much the expected rise in the EV s in use, the peak demand in the morning will rise accordingly with it. 31

32 Number of transactions Time of day Figure 10. Number of charging transactions; based on the assumption there will be 7,5 times more transactions per day in 2018 (based on the rise in EVs at EY). This is to illustrate the peak differences between the current and expected number of charging transactions and their charging times. It does not show the actual electricity demand and the building capacity. Besides the investment in charging stations, the building is going to run out of capacity to supply the charging demand. This means an additional investment on the grid, which was estimated for at least , by Liander (Ger Keuzenkamp). And this is all just a temporary solution. Imagine if electric vehicles are going to be the only mode of transportation in ten years, EY will encounter the same problem again. Social Charging: the Plugin Group The second scenario entails improving the current method in place; that of the plug in group. The results have shown that it currently does not work, because it is not being used for multiple reasons. Employees do not have the time to move their EV or do not want to disturb their colleagues. This method however, does show potential. At the moment one charging stations only charges one vehicle per day most of the times, because it is occupied by this vehicle the whole day. knowing that an EV needs a maximum of four hours to fully charge, means theoretically that one charging stations should at least be possible to charge two EV s during a 9 hour work day. Which could boost the current occupancy degree of 27,56% towards more than 50%. Certain easy understandable protocols and standards should be designed. An example can be that everyone who started charging before 9 AM has to move their vehicle off the charging station before lunchtime. Or a certain maximum charging time can be introduced. This method asks for commitment from the employees and also needs some sort of monitoring and notification system. The results show that when employees are notified about the completion of their 32

33 charging transaction they are more likely to move their car (H5.2). Therefore the addition of a simple notification system or app on the current plug in group method can have a positive impact on the flexible charging behavior of the employees and therefore the additional number of charging stations can be limited. It will be hard to make moving the vehicle a mandatory rule, because it is sensitive to exceptions. Certain employees, or partners more likely, will simply do not have the time to move their EV on agreed or notified times. They will evaluate their current activity more valuable than moving their vehicle, which will lead to resistance among other EV drivers. Another issue is the replacement parking spot. Moving the EV from the charging stations, means searching for a new spot, which by 12 pm, will be very hard. This will take extra valuable time, and will lead to more resistance. With the assumption that EY cannot obligate EV drivers to move their vehicle after a certain time, it will be very hard to boost the occupancy degree anywhere near the theoretical 50%. Employees will most likely return to old behavior, and stay connected to the charging stations as long as they are present at the office. With replacements parking spots however and a notification system, this method can have a positive effect on the occupancy degree. The issue of exceptions to the rule will stay, and therefore the theoretical occupancy degree will not be reached, but it can reduce the number of charging stations needed. To estimate the number of charging stations needed in the case that this method would work, I have made the same assumption that 75% of the EV s in use at EY need to charge every day (not everyone is at the office every day). With the current number of charging stations (18) and EV s in use (40) and assuming one charging station can charge 2 vehicles per day using this method, the need for extra charging stations is eliminated (40*0.75 = 30 need to charge, while 18*2 = 36 transactions can be made). With the estimation of 200 vehicles in 2018, 150 vehicles need to charge every day(200*0.75), and again, assuming this method allows the charging station to charge 2 vehicles a day, 76 charging stations will be needed, 58 additional. Valet Charging This is the scenario which in the literature review is explained as the manual outsourcing of moving the vehicles. The results showed that the reason employees who tend to stay connected as long as they park, is (in)convenience. They simply do not have the time, or just do not feel like moving their vehicle. Hiring a valet parker, someone who actively is managing the charging stations and their occupation, will give the occupancy degree a massive boost. Each vehicle that is fully charged will directly be removed from the charging station, and another waiting vehicle will be connected. 33

34 Using this method, the charging stations can be used for their full potential. The valet charger will need time to move and replace vehicles and connect it to the charging station, which off course will take time. Therefore a full 100% occupancy degree will not be reached. Together with the CEO of Pantarij, the company that offers this service, an estimation has been made that a 75% occupancy degree is more realistic taken into account the time spend on moving the vehicles. Figure 7 shows that currently 20 transactions a day are made with 18 charging stations which is 1,11 per charging station per day. I have calculated the current occupancy degree to 27,56%. If the occupancy degree can rise towards 75% with a valet parker, a charging station can perform three transactions per day (1.12/27,56*75). Which means that with the current number of charging stations, 60 transactions can be made on one day. Using this method would immediately eliminates the need for additional charging stations on the short term. One the long term however, additional charging stations will be needed. Assuming 200 EV s in use by 2018, where 75% of them need to be charged every day (150), will result in 50 charging stations needed (150/3) in Smart charging system The ultimate scenario with the highest convenience rate for the fleet owners and EY as well, is a system that manages the building capacity and charging needs together, in the most efficient way. The charger can just plug it in when he or she arrives, set an expected leaving time, go to work and at the end of the day and find the vehicle on the same spot where he or she left it, with a fully charged battery. The current problem with this method is that this asks for some initial investments. Every single vehicle will need a socket, which will be occupied all day by the same vehicle. An additional software system needs to be developed which can handle this smart charging infrastructure. The advantage of this method, lies within the saved costs for building new capacity like with traditional charging and eliminating the activity of moving the vehicle. 34

35 Framework The classification of these scenario s and their unique selling points is visualized in the following framework. Figure 11. Framework with classification of the scenarios. With smart charging and valet charging as the scenario s containing convenience and therefore the preferred solutions. Social and Smart charging contain a technical component where traditional and valet charging is manually notifying and replacing the vehicles. Cost benefit analysis This section covers the cost and benefits of each scenario. The cost consist of the investments in charging stations, grid enhancements, possible FTE s, and additional costs. The benefits are harder to quantify. Therefore the benefits of the scenarios are measured in terms of convenience. Like the interviews show, convenience level is mostly explained in performing the activity of moving the vehicle away from the charging stations. Therefore I quantified this convenience level by measuring the average time spend on this activity. This cost only occurs in the current Social Charging method because in the Valet charging scenario and the Smart Charging scenario the activity is eliminated. 35

36 The following table shows the costs and investments associated with this scenario. The amount of cars in use in 2015 and 2018 are based on the before mentioned assumption from the fleet owner of EY. currently 40 EV s and in 2018, 200 in use. Expansion and aggravation of the grid is needed when 45 of the 60 cars in use need to charge simultaneously according to the charging pilot report of Baerte and Driessen (2015). 200 EV s in use is the expectation for The 300 and 400 EV s in use scenario has been added to show the longer term consequences if EV adoption keeps rising. Traditional Charging Price p/u Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost Amount Cost EV's in use Charging Station , , , , Installation microgrid 150, , , Grid aggrevation 400, , , Cost/year 22, , , , Cumulated costs 22, , , ,325, Social Charging Price p/u Amount Cost Amount2 Cost Amount2Cost Amount2 Cost EV's in use Charging Station , , , , Notification System 5, , Installation microgrid 150, , Grid aggrevation 400, , Productivity loss/year 132, , , ,117, Cost/year 148, ,255, , ,145, Cumulated costs 148, ,403, ,121, ,267, Valet Charging Price p/u Amount Cost Amount2 Cost Amount2Cost Amount2 Cost EV's in use valet charger 37, , , , , Charging Station , , , , Cost/year 37, , , , Cumulated costs 37, , , , Smart Charging Price p/u Amount Cost Amount2 Cost Amount2Cost Amount2 Cost EV's in use Software system costs 40, , maintenance 4, maintenance 4, Charging Station , , , , installation microgrid EY 75, , Cost/year 22, , , , Cumulated costs 22, , , , Figure 12. Cost/benefit table EY. a clear difference can be seen for the long and short term. For now traditional charging can be sufficient by placing a couple of charging stations. When the EV s in use starts to rise, the valet charging method will be the most cost-efficient. If the EV fleet rises to a level of 300 or 400 vehicles, a smart charging system becomes the most cost-efficient method. Valet charging can therefore act as an interim solution towards smart charging. Traditional Charging Figure 12 shows that the initial costs are not that high, but using this method and continuing with traditional charging will bring massive costs in three years. This is due to the fact that the current available capacity is already on its peak level. With placing more charging stations this is going to run at and more capacity needs to be build. Social Charging Besides one charging station, in 2015 the only investment that needs to be made is a notification system or an app that notifies employees that their vehicle is charged and is ready to be moved. 36

37 In future years, more charging stations need to be created because this method does not occupy the charging stations efficiently enough. This additional charging stations create additional energy consumption which will eventually create the need for investing in the grid, just as with the traditional charging method. This method entails the activity of moving the vehicle which needs to be performed 30 times a day. in 2015 this takes 3,14 hours a day together for all the employees. In 2018 the activity has to be performed 150 times a day. which takes more than 15 hours a day and 4075 hours a year which employees can spend working instead of moving the vehicle. The hourly tariff was measured by the job titles of the interviewees and their tariffs per hour which results in a blended tariff of 162/hour. Valet Charging This method shows less investments on charging stations because it utilizes the stations more efficient. However this does comes with the cost of hiring a FTE Valet parker. Which is an ongoing yearly investment. In 2018, 200 vehicles will need to be handled by the valet parking service, which will ask for 2,5 FTE in However, this method has the benefit that it eliminates the activity of moving the vehicle from the charging station. The savings from eliminating the activity can easily cover the costs for a FTE valet charger. Smart Charging This method is aimed for the future years. Therefore no initial costs are taken into account. First a software system needs to be developed which can handle and steer more than 20 charging stations at once. Managing Director of EV-box is working on this development and estimates the cost on 40, The micro grid, the indoor installation of EY needs to be improved which is estimated by Neervoort (2015) for 75, Plus the investment of charging stations. To facilitate smart charging, every vehicle needs a socket. Just as with Valet charging, this method eliminates the activity of moving the vehicle during the day and therefore saves the same amount of time as with Valet charging. But valet charging becomes more expensive as the EV fleet expands. Therefore around a certain point, expected to be around 2018, the yearly cost for the valet charging service will be higher than the investment costs for a smart charging system. 37

38 Scenario evaluation The identified scenarios will be evaluated towards the most relevant criteria according to the results of this study; convenience, technological aspect, financial aspects, attitude towards the concerning scenario, expected implementation success factor and the future prospect of the method. Traditional charging The results have shown that implementing this method will be extremely costly as the years go by. Employees will not change their behavior and EY will need to keep investing in the grid. Employees are not content with the current charging structure and therefore the attitude towards it is already negative. The only prospect of this method is more investments. A technical and/or convenient solution is required. Social Charging This brings in a technical aspect. With notifying the employees about their full batteries, results show that this would positively influence their willingness to move their EV. The financial aspects do not speak for this method, the initial cost are low,but future cost are massive. The implementation success factor however is not very promising. The issue of lack in time for moving the EV stays, and therefore the attitude towards this issue can be negative, especially when the amount of EV s rise. It will become a undesirable break from work which takes too much time and create frustration. This study has shown that convenience is the most important factor in charging behavior, and this method contains a very low convenience level, which again highlights the low implementation success factor expectations. Even if it does work, it is just a temporary solution. Once the EV is going to dominate the car park, this method will create chaos and the same grid investments needs to be made as in the traditional charging method. Valet Charging This method gives the convenience level a huge boost and therefore has a high expected implementation success factor. It is easy to implement and solves the current issue, and is therefore a quick fix. Cost per year are low, but it is an ongoing payment. Attitude towards this solution is excellent as shown by this study, which makes sense knowing that the convenience level is very high. The costs for a valet parker are widely exceeded by the benefits of the time saved of eliminating the activity. Smart Charging Convenience levels cannot be higher than within this method. No action is asked from the employee. It can plug its vehicle when it arrives and it will find it back at the same spot, fully charged at the end of the day. It has a high technological aspect, and a charging station for every single vehicle, both mentioned as preferred solutions by the respondents. Therefore the attitude towards this method will 38

39 be very positive. Implementation of such an infrastructure asks for more research and technical investments which are not cheap but are mostly initial costs. After the implementation it will mostly be maintenance costs. And taken the benefits of eliminating the activity of moving the vehicle into account, this is a highly attractive option for the coming years. It also shows a lot of prospect for the future. With the decentralization of the generation of energy with the help of EV s, building a smart charging system will facilitate this kind of innovations (NL Agency, 2012). 39

40 Conclusion The aim of this study was to answer the research question: - How should the charging facilities and conditions in an office car park be structured, will it motivate flexible charging behavior? The analysis of charging behavior in general has been provided in the literature review. The analysis of the current infrastructure of car parks, the current charging behavior in car parks is provided in the results, based on analyzing quantitative charging transaction data of EY to state the current infrastructure and behavior. Qualitative data consisting of interviews with EY employees for finding underlying motives and reasons for behavior are presented to eventually find the strongest influencers of this behavior. The most important influencers are used to create a framework for charging methods in the discussion section. The analysis of the current charging infrastructure and behavior showed the inefficient use of the charging stations with a occupancy degree of 27,63%. The duration, starting and end times of the transactions showed the potential of the charging stations and structure for efficient charging. The interviews showed convenience is the strongest influencer of charging behavior. This is in line with the studies done on HBI (Franke, 2012: Rahmati & Zhong, 2009) and the study done on Dutch charging behavior by Poelsta (2014). Another strong influencer found was financial interventions. Most of the interviewees were sensitive to financial triggers but because of the payment structure in the used case in this study, is not a real option. Informedness is not confirmed as a influencer of charging behavior. The knowledge of every single respondent was good, while charging behavior was inefficient. Another finding of this study is the discovery of the influencer which is financial anxiety. The literature showed range anxiety as the only anxiety which influences charging behavior. In this particular case, where the respondents did not pay for their charging transactions at work or in public but only at home, influenced them in making charging decisions. EV drivers who lease their vehicle take every opportunity to charge at work or public to avoid not foreseen costs for charging at home or fossil fuel used in the case of PHEV s. For giving a final answer to the research question the discussion provided four charging methods based on the convenience level and the manual versus technical outsourcing of activities. The recommendation section will provide an charging infrastructure for the case used in this study. 40

41 Recommendations EY is a leading firm in the Netherlands when it comes to promoting durable energy and every facet that comes with it. That is the reason for the attractive policy employees get when leasing or buying an EV and is the reason for the popularity and rise of the EV at EY. But, we have seen that current EV driving EY employees are unsatisfied with the current charging infrastructure because the charging facilities are not up to date to the current demand. This is not in line with the durable vision EY promotes. Therefore a durable solution to this issue is desired. As shown in the framework, four scenarios are given where only two of those contain a high convenience level, namely the Valet Charging and Smart Charging option. With convenience as the most important influencer of charging behavior, these are the scenarios that should be considered. The Smart Charging option shows the most potential for the future, and especially in the current age where everything is getting automated, digitalized and monitored this should be the long term option for EY. This option does however entails some major investments and development of software. Therefore this option should be aimed towards EY does however need a short term solution for the pressing issue. The only other option with a high convenience level is the Valet Charging scenario. This immediately eliminates the need for additional charging stations and it is easy to implement. It entails a minor yearly investment, which is covered with the employees time saved for the activity of moving the vehicle in the first year. Figure 13. Business Case valet charging. This graph shows the positive business case for valet charging for car parks with fleets up to 180 EV s. When EV s rise over 180, Smart charging will be a more cost efficient option. Smart charging is not included in this graph, because the lack of certainty on the costs for this method. Now, with a short and long term solution provided, EY should focus their research on the implementation of such a Smart Charging system. 41

42 EY should also rethink their compensation policy. The results showed one of the reasons of the current charging behavior is financial anxiety, which is caused by the fact that employees have to pay for charging at home (if they do not own a charging station), and hybrids only have a limited compensated fuel range. Compensating more of those costs will positively change charging behavior. Compensating charge load at home is more in line with their policy of durable transport, but compensating more of the fossil fuel used will probably have stronger effect on the charging behavior. EY should evaluate these options and consider where the priority lies. 42

43 Future implications This study has showed the issue of charging infrastructures in office car parks, shown characteristics and preferences of leased EV drivers, and provided solutions and interventions for dealing with the issue. EY is a leading firm when it comes to electric driving and therefore probably one of the first to encounter such problems. Other firms with office car parks however, will sooner or later face the same issues. This study, and the provided framework can be used by those firms to make an investment decision on which charging method it needs to implement. The EY car park only hosts employees and clients, so future research should look into open car parks and the people who visit such an open car park, and if they possess the same characteristics and preferences. Financial incentives are easier to implement in such a car park and therefore their effect should be tested. Prioritizing on vehicle type or agenda should also be explored. A smart charging system should have a prioritizing algorithm imbedded in its software to create the best experience and facilitate the efficient and smart charging. With the overall shift of energy infrastructures to smarter grids and vehicles able to store energy, firms with car parks should research the possibility of alternative energy sources like solar power. Car parks can become energy generators instead of energy consumers. The before mentioned decentralized energy generation (NL Agency, 2012) is not far away and gives the possibility for car parks to generate money instead of investing money. 43

44 Acknowledgements First I would like to thank one of my supervisors Baerte de Brey, who was actively supporting me throughout the project and especially helped me with the communication with relevant peers in the area. As a leader in chasing and discovering all energy related innovation techniques and research at Stedin, I could not have wished for a better supervisor. Same goes for Etienne Neervoort, New Business Manager at E-laad who helped me with more specific technical related issues. The university is also to be thanked, especially my second reader Micha Kahlen, who provided me with feedback along the way. Furthermore, I would like to thank all the organizations which provided me with data but especially EY for its cooperation in this study and providing all the data and respondents I needed. Many thanks to the employees of EY to participate in the interviews and giving their honest opinion and experiences. Finally many thanks to everyone involved and for their enthusiastic responses and feedback on the subject. 44

50 B. Translated interview to English This interview is being held for my master thesis. I am looking for preferences for charging of electric vehicles and finding ways to make the charging transactions more flexible. You are free not to answer certain questions. At the end I will ask again if certain answers rather not be used. EV Experience 1. For how long have you been driving an EV? 2. Wat are your experiences so far? 3. Why did you choose an EV? (ask for environmental reasons if not stated) 4. How are your charging experiences? 5. How do you evaluate the charging facilities at EY? 6. Did you have to change your lifestyle for driving electric? 7. Do you have an additional (non-ev) vehicle? if so, for what use? Why? Driving profile 8. Do you have a steady driving pattern? a. How does you day look like? b. What is the most use of the EV? 9. Wat the average distance you travel? Do you feel limited by the battery? 10. Did you change your driving pattern on the fact that EV needs to be charged? 11. Did you change anything else since you drive an EV? Range Anxiety 12. How often do you check the battery level? 13. Which battery level makes you worried? 14. Did you ever had a flat battery? a. If so, what did you do about it to prevent it in the future? 15. Which battery capacity would best fit your needs? Preferences With the growth of the amount of EV s in use, DSO s and EY are facing challegens to facilitate the charging of these vehicles. Especially the peak it brings. 16. Have you noticed anything of the charging problems at EY? a. If so, what? 17. Hoe flexible is your charging behavior at EY? a. Do you always charge? b. For how long do you charge? 50

51 c. When do you charge? 18. Which incentives would you give to help the current problems? Financial incentives 19. Do you pay for charging? 20. Do you think it s expensive? 21. What if you would get discount if you charge outside peak hours, would this change your charging behavior? 22. What if a dynamic tariff is implemented where higher prices during peak hours are charged, would this change your behavior? Informedness 23. Do you know the current battery level of your vehicle? 24. Do you know how fast your vehicle charges? 25. Do you need a full battery to make it to home? 26. If you would be notified if your batteries where fulle charged, would you go move your vehicle of the charging station if this is asked from you? Valet parking 27. Are u familiar with Valet Parking? 28. How is your attitude towards that? a. Positief: why? b. Negative: why? 29. Do you mind leaving your key after parking your vehicle? 51

167 Appendix A: List of variables with corresponding questionnaire items (in English) used in chapter 2 Task clarity 1. I understand exactly what the task is 2. I understand exactly what is required of

The Dutch mortgage market at a cross road? The problematic relationship between supply of and demand for residential mortgages 22/03/2013 Housing market in crisis House prices down Number of transactions

www.iuscommune.eu Dear Ius Commune PhD researchers, You are kindly invited to attend the Ius Commune Amsterdam Masterclass for PhD researchers, which will take place on Thursday 16 June 2016. During this

1 Intercultural Mediation through the Internet Hans Verrept Intercultural mediation and policy support unit 2 Structure of the presentation - What is intercultural mediation through the internet? - Why

Settings for the C100BRS4 MAC Address Spoofing with cable Internet. General: Please use the latest firmware for the router. The firmware is available on http://www.conceptronic.net! Use Firmware version

Comics FILE 4 COMICS BK 2 The funny characters in comic books or animation films can put smiles on people s faces all over the world. Wouldn t it be great to create your own funny character that will give

CREATING VALUE THROUGH AN INNOVATIVE HRM DESIGN CONFERENCE 20 NOVEMBER 2012 DE ORGANISATIE VAN DE HRM AFDELING IN WOELIGE TIJDEN Mieke Audenaert 2010-2011 1 HISTORY The HRM department or manager was born

Expert at a distance Creating a marketplace where expertise is made available through videoconferencing Roland Staring Community Support Manager roland.staring@surfnet.nl Working together for education

The role of mobility in higher education for future employability Jim Allen Overview Results of REFLEX/HEGESCO surveys, supplemented by Dutch HBO-Monitor Study migration Mobility during and after HE Effects

Vragenlijst in te vullen en op te sturen voor de meeloopochtend, KABK afdeling fotografie Questionnaire to be filled in and send in before the introduction morning, KABK department of Photography Stuur

Buy Me! FILE 5 BUY ME KGT 2 Every day we see them during the commercial break: the best products in the world. Whether they are a pair of sneakers, new mascara or the latest smartphone, they all seem to

De Relatie tussen Betrokkenheid bij Pesten en Welbevinden en de Invloed van Sociale Steun en Discrepantie The Relationship between Involvement in Bullying and Well-Being and the Influence of Social Support

Introduction Henk Schwietert Evalan develops, markets and sells services that use remote monitoring and telemetry solutions. Our Company Evalan develops hard- and software to support these services: mobile

SURFnet User Survey 2006 Walter van Dijk Madrid, 21 September 2006 Agenda A few facts General picture resulting from the survey Consequences for the service portfolio Consequences for the yearly innovation

Running head: BREAKFAST, CONSCIENTIOUSNESS AND MENTAL HEALTH 1 The Role of Breakfast Diversity and Conscientiousness in Depression and Anxiety De Rol van Gevarieerd Ontbijten en Consciëntieusheid in Angst

Dutch Research Council: women in scientific careers Dr. Wilma van Donselaar Paris 2005 What is NWO? NWO is the Dutch Research Council and consists of 8 councils: Humanities, Social Sciences, Medical Sciences,

LED LIGHTING FOR COLD STORAGE Madrid, October 16 Maarten de Graaf Didyouknowthat? It takes 0.65KWh of air conditioning energy to cool down every 1 kwh of lighting heat. Didyouknowthat? Meaning that youernergybillforlightingis

Work to Work mediation Mobility Centre Automotive Theo Keulen 19-9-2008 Policy Context Flexibility,mobility and sustainable employability are key words in modern labour market policy Work to work arrangements

Policy Aspects of Storm Surge Warning Systems Ir. Herman Dijk Ministry of Transport, Public Works and Water Contents Water in the Netherlands What kind of information and models do we need? Flood System

(for Dutch go to page 4) How to install and use dictionaries on the ICARUS Illumina HD (E652BK) The Illumina HD offers dictionary support for StarDict dictionaries.this is a (free) open source dictionary

If you have a client logo or other co-branding to include, this should go here. It should never be larger than the Deloitte logo. Waarom kiezen voor een shared services center? Succesfactoren en valkuilen

Instruction project completion report The project completion report is in fact a final progress report providing a comparison between the start of the project and the situation at the end of the project.